This article explores how critical pedagogy unfolds in the everyday interactions between teachers and students. Specifically, Freirean constructs of critique and dialogue were explored in two key literacy events drawn from an ethnographically informed case study of one fourth-grade classroom. The events were first examined from an ethnographic perspective to understand how sociopolitical issue(s) were being critiqued (or avoided). These events were then analyzed again through microanalytic discourse analysis to explore how teachers and students jointly accomplished dialogue and critique through proposing and taking up of particular stances toward text(s). By juxtaposing these two analytic lenses, the researchers argue for an understanding of critical pedagogy, particularly the tenets of critique and dialogue, as interactionally co-constructed in the continually evolving, everyday talk between teachers and students. This article closes by considering the implications of this work for classroom-based literacy research that examines critical pedagogy.
AronowitzS. (2015). Against orthodoxy: Social theory and its discontents. Palgrave Macmillan.
2.
AuW. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.
3.
AuW. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39–62.
4.
AukermanM. (2012). “Why do you say yes to Pedro, but no to me? Toward a critical literacy of dialogic engagement. Theory Into Practice, 51(1), 42–48.
5.
BartoloméL. I. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(2), 173–195.
6.
BeckerA. L. (1991). Language and languaging. Language & Communication, 11(1–2), 33–35.
7.
BehnkenB. D. (2011). Fighting their own battles: Mexican Americans, African Americans, and the struggle for civil rights in Texas. University of North Carolina Press.
8.
BiestaG. (1998). Say you want a revolution…: Suggestions for the impossible future of critical pedagogy. Educational Theory, 48(4), 499–510.
9.
BloomeD.BeachR. (2019). Introduction. In BeachR.BloomeD. (Eds.), Language relations for transforming the teaching of literacy and the language arts (pp. 1–20). Routledge.
10.
BloomeD.BeaucheminF. (2016). Languaging everyday life in classrooms. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 65(1), 152–165.
11.
BloomeD.CarterS. P.ChristianB. M.OttoS.Shuart-FarisN. (2004). Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. Routledge.
12.
BloomeD.Egan-RobertsonA. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 305–333.
13.
BomerR. (2011). Building adolescent literacy in today’s English classrooms. Heinemann.
14.
Bonilla-SilvaE. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield.
15.
CollinsP. H. (2017). Sharpening intersectionality’s critical edge[Keynote address]. Research Agenda for Women & Girls of Color Conference. Ohio State University.
16.
CurwenM. S.ArdellA.MacGillivrayL. (2019). Hopeful discourse: Elementary children’s activist responses to modern-day slavery grounded in systems thinking. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 68, 139–161.
17.
De LissovoyN. (2015). Education and emancipation in the neoliberal era: Being, teaching, and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
EllsworthE. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–325.
19.
FreireP. (2015). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury. (Original work published 1970)
20.
FreireP.MacedoD. P. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word & the world. Bergin & Garvey.
21.
GravesD. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Heinemann.
22.
GumperzJ. J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In IrvineJ.SchieffelinB.SeriesC. M.GoodwinM. H.KuipersJ.KulickD.LucyJ.OchsE. (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 229–252). Cambridge University Press.
HeathS. B.StreetB. V. (2008). On ethnography: Approaches to language and literacy research. Teachers College Press.
25.
HikidaM. (2018). Holding space for literate identity co-construction. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(2), 217–238.
26.
HikidaM.TaylorL. A. (2020). “As the test collapses in”: Teaching and learning amid high-stakes testing in two urban elementary classrooms. Urban Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920902263
27.
HuertaT. M. (2011). Humanizing pedagogy: Beliefs and practices on the teaching of Latino children. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(1), 38–57.
28.
KumashiroK. K. (2015). Against common sense: Teaching and learning toward social justice. Routledge.
29.
LamanT. T. (2013). From ideas to words: Writing strategies for English language learners. Heinemann.
30.
LoveB. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom. Beacon Press.
31.
LukeA. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into Practice, 51(1), 4–11.
PapenU. (2020). Using picture books to develop critical visual literacy in primary schools: Challenges of a dialogic approach. Literacy, 54(1), 3–10.
34.
PhilipT. M.Souto-ManningM.AndersonL.HornI. J.Carter AndrewsD.StillmanJ.VargheseM. (2019). Making justice peripheral by constructing practice as “core”: How the increasing prominence of core practices challenges teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(3), 251–264.
35.
PhilipT. M.ZavalaM. (2016). The possibilities of being “critical”: Discourses that limit options for educators of color. Urban Education, 51(6), 659–682.
36.
PicowerB. (2009). The unexamined whiteness of teaching: How white teachers maintain and enact dominant racial ideologies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 197–215.
37.
RymesB.Souto-ManningM.BrownC. (2005). Being “critical” as taking a stand: One of the central dilemmas of CDA. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(2), 195–198.
38.
SalazarM. C. (2013). A humanizing pedagogy reinventing the principles and practice of education as a journey toward liberation. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 121–148.
39.
SmagorinskyP. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389–411.
40.
TaylorL. A. (2019). Negotiating discourses of curriculum and time: Tensions of humanizing and dehumanizing discourses in an urban elementary school. Equity & Excellence in Education, 52(2-3), 312–326.
41.
ThomasG. (2015). How to do your case study (2nd ed.). Sage.
42.
VossoughiS.GutiérrezK. D. (2016). Critical pedagogy and sociocultural theory. In EsmondeI.BookA. N. (Eds.), Power and privilege in the learning sciences (pp. 157–179). Routledge.
43.
YoonB.UliassiC. (2018). Meaningful learning of literary elements by incorporating critical literacies. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 67(1), 360–376.
44.
ZisselsbergerM. (2016). Toward a humanizing pedagogy: Leveling the cultural and linguistic capital in a fifth-grade writing classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(2), 121–137.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
